Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:05:35 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: whois package
Message-ID:	<20011210210535.GA26958@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<911C684A29ACD311921800508B7293BA037D2891 AT cnmail> <20011210204759 DOT 3693 DOT qmail AT lizard DOT curl DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20011210204759.3693.qmail@lizard.curl.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 03:47:59PM -0500, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
>>  From: Mark Bradshaw <bradshaw AT staff DOT crosswalk DOT com>
>>  Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:22:40 -0500
>>  
>>  I got a couple of notes last week from Chris and Jonathan Kamens suggesting
>>  bw-whois as the package of choice, but no pro or con list.
>
>Well, I gave you some pros and cons, but they focused on meta-issues
>rather than on the actual functionality of the two packages.  I
>personally think it's easier to maintain a Perl script than a compiled
>program, and I don't consider the ability to run in a "stripped down
>cygwin" is terribly important, but I can see that other people might,
>which is why I dropped the argument :-).
>
>I doubt the functionality of bw-whois is so different from the GNU
>package you mentioned that it makes much of a difference which one you
>choose.  So if you're willing to do the work, and you'd rather
>maintain the GNU version, I think you should go for it.

That's a 100% ditto from me.

cgf

- Raw text -